Here's my question:

seeing as the british intelligence knew about this plot well in advance 
and saw no reason to ban liquids on planes leading up to the publicity 
stunt regarding the bust, why was it suddenly soooooo important to make 
sure that no liquids came through after they announced it?

And what about the US?	banning liquids on US domestic flights wouldn't 
have jeopardized the british bust, so why all of a sudden do we have to 
get worked up about liquids on flights?

- kevin


On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Brian Magerko wrote:

>
>
> Why stop with explosives.  If you really want to being the Western world to a

> halt, do the following:
> - obtain the plague or some other nasty virus
> - infect yourself with said virus
> - buy yourself a few international flights going through Ohare, Heathrow, and

> wherever else
> - cough a lot
>
> If you wanted to target a single country, just use domestic flights.	THAT is

> the kind of attack that is scary as hell.  But again, what security measures 
> will we go through to prevent it?  Surveillance...I hope they surveil the 
> hell out of terrorist cells to see what they're up to, sure.	In terms of 
> dealing with the general public though, we can either start buying gas masks 
> or try to improve the world (tm) and make people consider NOT destroying us.
>
> B-
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Robert Felty wrote:
>
>> James,
>> 
>> You are right to point out this inconsistency. However, consider the fact 
>> that there is very little security on passenger train travel in the U.S. 
>> and in most of Europe. In the U.S., not many people actually ride trains, 
>> so blowing up a few would not be that big a setback, but in Europe it could 
>> be. Blowing up a bunch of railroad tracks in the U.S. could really cripple 
>> shipping though (or major highways). I am not trying to give the terrorists 
>> ideas here, but let's say that they start targeting some of these outlets 
>> as well. We will have to build up more and more security measures. Where 
>> does it stop? We will never get one step ahead of the terrorists. That is 
>> the advantage of the attacker.
>> 
>> I still don't know all the details of the latest attempted attack, but it 
>> sounds like these attackers never even set foot in an airport. Their plan 
>> was foiled long before that. Evidence recovered after the 9/11 attacks 
>> shows that it also probably could have been avoided by similar means, i.e. 
>> by using intelligence agencies, without inconveniencing travelers.
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:53 PM, James W Mickens wrote:
>> 
>>>> Back to Nate and Danny's ideas. I for one would rather not
>>>> have security in airports whatsoever. I would be plenty happy
>>>> to take my chances. I don't think that every plane would
>>>> suddenly start blowing up.
>>> 
>>> I strongly disagree. By your own analysis, "there are lots of people who 
>>> hate the U.S." and will do organizations like Hamas "a favor by harming 
>>> the evil U.S." If this is true, it couldn't possibly be the case that our 
>>> airplanes would be reasonably safe with no security at our airports. In 
>>> fact, we can almost be certain that there would be a huge upswing in 
>>> terrorists attacks, if only because Bin Laden is on the record as saying 
>>> that he *wants* to hit us again. Every one of the Bin Laden tapes contains 
>>> ominous warnings about future attacks. He is not being sarcastic. In 
>>> conjunction with addressing the root causes of terrorism, we have to 
>>> protect ourselves against the people who already hate us now. We must be 
>>> realistic about the dangers that face us. The British, American, and 
>>> Pakistani intelligence agencies just broke up a major terrorist plot 
>>> against airliners. This is the context for the entire conversation that 
>>> we're having now. The threat is real.
>>> 
>>> ~j
>>> 
>> 
>